Recommendations please: digital camera

[cookie]

I'm considering purchasing a new digital camera, and would like some input. I have one now that's five years old, and it has two features I'd like to retain:


AA batteries
CompactFlash


I'm flexible on the rest, and may even consider storage formats other than CF, but would prefer at least 3.0 MegaPixel. Any suggestions?

[JIMBO]

cookie-

What is the benefit of AAA batteries other than being able to get them anywhere ? Do you recharge them ? I used to recharge special rechargeable AAA batteries for my pager etc. but they still don't compare to Ni-Cad and other rechargeable "high-tec"

Just got my new PHOTOgraphic mag and they list their favorite 10 digicams. They are at www.photographic.com/ They probably have this article online, check it out.
No particular order:

Kodak Easyshare LS443-
4 megapixel, easyshare docking system, 1.8" LCDmonitor plus optical viewfinder $469.95

Most of the others are much more expensive @ $600.00+ to $1500.00 or so. i would have thought they would mention more in the $400-$500 range.

[cookie]

Originally posted by JIMBO
cookie-

What is the benefit of AAA batteries other than being able to get them anywhere ? Do you recharge them ? I used to recharge special rechargeable AAA batteries for my pager etc. but they still don't compare to Ni-Cad and other rechargeable "high-tec"...


I've always preferred to use cheap, readily availabe batteries. If the proprietary ones are that much better (performance wise) though, I'd consider it.

[RoverDave]

My dicam is two years old. You really need to check current reviews because the technology is changing so fast. You'll need to decide what features are important to you (manual exposure control? manual shutter control? infared focusing?...) For me, one important features has been macro focus. I find that I shoot a lot of close up shots and normal focus won't permit me to get close enough. It's essential for gun photos...

Here are some links you can check out:

dc views (http://www.dcviews.com/)
Steve's digicams (http://www.steves-digicams.com/)
Digital Photography Review (http://www.dpreview.com/)

[JIMBO]

You are right when you talk of the technology changing so quickly. Just a year or two ago 1 Mpixel was the norm and standard AA batteries. Nowadays the cameras are so near film quality you can't tell (up to 5 and 6 MPixel and $3-$5000+), long lasting cell phone type batteries Ni-Cad and others. Macro feature is essential for anybody doing close-up pics like we see here on our forum. Without macro many cameras will not focus closer than 3 feet or so and then you must try to use your zoom. LCD screen aswell as optical viewfinder in same camera is a definite plus. Memory is critical to be able to retain higher numbers of higher quality pictures on a memory card. My sister has a Nikon Cool Pix I think it is called that does a great job. The prices have not come down as fast as DVD players but are inching down or atleast more feature laden cameras are becoming available in the $400-$600 range.:cool

[Dan0341]

I've had a Kodak DX3900 for a year and a half and have been extremely pleased with it. The camera has a 3.1-megapixel resolution that captures images at 2,160 x 1,440 pixels, while lower-resolution modes are offered at 1,800 x 1,200; 1,536 x 1,024; and 1,008 x 720.

It possesses an all-glass lens with 2x optical zoom, 3x digital zoom, autofocus, USB connectivity, and a 1.5-inch LCD screen. It takes two AA batteries (I use rechargeables). It comes with an 8 MB card, but you'll want to upgrade the card. I've got a 64 MB (if I remember right) and it can hold 192 pics at 0.8 megapixel resolution. At 3.1, it can hold 65 pics.

Currently, the camera is about $320.00 or so. When I bought it, I paid about $340.00 from a mail order company. I recommend buying off the internet (it's usually cheaper and sales tax can be avoided). Just make sure you buy from a reputable company. Finding this info using search engines is fairly easy and fast. The extra memory card cost me about $40.00. I researched about a week before deciding on this camera. You get a lot of bang for the buck. It fits my needs perfectly and I couldn't be happier. Check out the links below to help you with your decision.

Dan


Kodak DX3900 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00005NVPW/ref=dp_ln_ed_1/002-9665941-5655232?v=glance&s=photo&vi=reviews&me=standard)

Multiple Camera Reviews (http://www.imaging-resource.com/DIGCAM05.HTM)

[JIMBO]

Dan0341-

Thanks for your input! It is always good to hear an opinion from personal experience. You are right, I have seen that model of Kodak reviewed in the past, I think it was replaced by the DX-4900 (@ 4 MPixels for less than $400.00) Kadak seems to have so many of it's models included with that docking format thingy which is a USB port connecting stand the camera sits in, kinda cool actually.:D :cool :D

[Dan0341]

The docking port is cool, but I believe it's still an extra you have to pay for. I currently use the USB wire that comes with the camera - it works well.

To give you an idea of the detail, here's a close up pic that I had taken of some mags (using the 0.8 megapixel setting):

http://www.gunbroker.com/pixhost/2003-03-16/Dan0341_1047858836_fal_4_mags_top.JPG

[JIMBO]

Nice ! The pic taken at that resolution seems to be plenty adequate for just about any type of close-up job and the flash aided nicely in lighting the subject. That pic was taken in macro mode, how many pics can you put on a memory card ? At relatively low res. of 0.8 how many pics will your memory hold ?

[Dan0341]

JIMBO, at .08 megapixel I can fit 192 pics on a 64MB memory card. In my opinion, you only need to use 3.1 megapixel if you're printing pictures on paper. Most, if not all, of my gun pics on this website were taken at .08 or 1.6. I also have to shrink the pics quite a bit to make them fit - it not they're HUGE. At 1.6 I can fit 114 pics, at 2.2 I can fit 85, and 3.1 allows 65 pics.

I do use 3.1 (and leave the pic in original size) when I'm selling something on e-bay or gunbroker. This shows extreme detail, but the person has to scroll up/down/left/right to see the entire photo. Sometimes I have the problem of the high res pic showing a small flaw, making it look much worse. People have always commented that the item they bought looked better than in the pics! If you want, I'll take a pic of the same thing at all the different settings (and post them here) so you can see the difference for yourself.

Dan

[JIMBO]

dan0341-

Dan, I really appreciate your willingness to share your opinions and technical findings as they pertain to your digital photo work. Our conversation here is creating a lot of good info for people interested in the subject. This thread was started by cookie and as you can see from his initial post he is interested in battery life and flash features as he seeks a new camera. If you would post some pics at different resolutions I am sure cookie and others, including myself, would find them interesting and beneficial in their search for a digital camera and would be excellent reference material for people to refer to in the future.

Large sized pics on the net on sites such as eBay and Gunbroker to me are a pain in the tush (unless I need to see something as you mentioned).

Thanks again for posting the resolution pics and if you would perhaps you could choose a subject with some degree of detail so we can see the change in clarity from one level of resolution to another, the mag follower shot was great. Whatever you choose will be fine. Thanks again and best regards.:D :cool :D

[JIMBO]

I thought the big pics were a pain in the tush but I thought small pictures would be helpful for different people to view.:D

[Dan0341]

I won't post the pics because of the excessive bandwidth. If I shrink the pics, you'd have a difficult time distinguishing between low and high resolution. So it wouldn't be worth the time to post them.

I agree, huge pics are difficult and annoying to view. The ONLY time I do this is when I'm selling a firearm. People who are looking to spend a lot of money want the larger pics for extreme detail. I've sold eight firearms this way (over the net) and every single person loved the high res pics. For smaller items that I'm selling (ex: mags, slings, pouches, and other accessories), I downsize the pics.

Dan

[JIMBO]

Dan0341-

I agree. The large pics DO serve a great purpose when showing a specific area of detail. If I were a customer of yours I would want to see a pic like that for sure prior to send a large amount of money, heck they are second only to being there in person to hold the item in your hand.